8 ms·

> less handguns = less deaths. This does not follow. Take Brazil for example. 60k homicides per year, and guns are pretty much forbidden. Of course, criminals

• donkeyd 9y ago
  How about accidental deaths? If you don't have a gun, there's a very slight chance that your kid will accidentally shoot itself in the head. In most European countries, accidental gun deaths aren't a thing at all. In the US however, it's a daily thing.
  • toomanybeersies 9y ago
    Suicides are actually the main cause of death by firearm. It's a remarkably convenient and easy way to kill yourself.
• dmitriid 9y ago
  Take Europe for example. Less homicides than the States, guns are pretty much forbidden (yes, they are all but forbidden in Switzerland, too).
  • adventured 9y ago
    Canada has a lot of guns (not nearly as many guns as the US of course), far more guns than most European nations. It has a far lower gun murder rate than the US. There are other factors in play than just whether guns are forbidden or not. For example, gun laws and the nature of those laws (or lack thereof). Finland, Norway, Austria, France, Iceland, Germany, Switzerland - seven of the top 20 nations when it comes to guns per capita. It's the nature of the gun laws, not the forbidden or not forbidden aspect, that plays a far larger role.
  • alkonaut 9y ago
    I think the whole relationship with "guns" is completely different. We have tons of "guns", but basically no handguns, very few semiautomatics, and absolutely no military style weapons. (Yes - our laws explicitly say that if a gun is a civilian version of a military model, it is banned. It's a good law). Most importantly we have strict storage laws (you can't drive around with a gun in your car every day, you can't have a gun in next to your bed etc- you have guns in your gun safe, period). And the reason behind why all this works is because there is a broad acceptance that a gun is a hunting tool or sports equipment, not a tool for self defense, nor a tool for ensuring that government stays in line (we use pitchforks and cobblestone for that). Gun laws are both the cause and effect of such a mentality. You can't have strict gun laws in a place where people believe guns are essential for self defense and defense of democracy. And vice versa. For the US to end up with sane (yes) gun laws, the water needs to be slowly heated. Generations of tightened gun laws, amnesties etc. Just starting with a ban on just a few types of weapons + adding safe storage requirements would go a long way.
    • ivanhoe 9y ago
      This is an excellent analysis
    • ohfunkyeah 9y ago
      Ah! you've hit the nail on the head why the pro gun people are so adamant about not giving an inch to any sort of increased regulations. Most on the pro gun regulation left do not seem to be able to even fathom why closing the gun show loophole is a non-starter or how there can be push-back against banning guns for people on the terrorist watch list. It's because either are effectively turning the burner on very very low.
      • alkonaut 9y ago
        Exactly. And people advocating stricter gun laws can't afford NOT be open about this. "We don't want to take your guns, we want to change attitudes so your grandchildren won't wan't to own guns, and most importantly won't feel the need to own guns". That said - gun show loophole is just that - a loophole. Should be fixed. I think those who want to keep responsible gun ownership also need to realize they have a lot to win from stricter regulation. With the current culture of short-sighted and reactive legislation, the next ban will be rammed through congress after the next terrible shootout - and that's not the law gun advocates want. I think they are mistaken if they believe they can just use the NRA as a roadblock to keep people buying AR's at gun shows forever. I don't think the political climate a generation from now allows that.
        • gozur88 9y ago
          >That said - gun show loophole is just that - a loophole. Should be fixed. The "gun show loophole" is a misnomer. It's not a loophole. It's simply the case in most states in the US for private sales you're allowed to sell your gun to another person without checking with the federal government first, something that's not true of dealers.
          • alkonaut 9y ago
  • mantas 9y ago
    What? I could get a gun license anytime I want. Yes, it takes time and paperwork. But unless you're ex-convict or have mental health history, there's nothing stopping you from owning a light firearm. Hunting rifles are easy to get too. Only military-ish style guns are forbidden. This is in EU country and I believe quite a few other countries are on similar level.
• ramy_d 9y ago
  shockingly true https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Brazil https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Brazil
  • TheArcane 9y ago
    > this is exactly what above comment talks about. You are picking the country that fits that narrative but forget about all of the rest. Try Europe.
    • mantas 9y ago
      What about Europe? Guns are allowed, although strictly regulated, and there're very few homicides.
      • galobtter 9y ago
        He's saying that Europe has strict gun control laws and thus less homicides
        • mantas 9y ago
          But it's not that strict. Not ex-convict, no mental issues history - bam you can buy a gun. What gun you can buy is different story. Anything more powerful than a pistol or hunting riffle is more or less no-go.
  • ramy_d 9y ago
    ouch, downvoted for sourcing a claim? thanks hacker news
• alkonaut 9y ago
  > This does not follow. If the ban didn't actually lessen the number of handguns, then we don't have the left hand side of the implication! These are two things: ban on handguns -> less handguns less handguns -> fewer deaths Someone argued that the second is true, and you seem to refute it by saying the first isn't. So maybe you aren't talking about the same thing. I'm going to argue that the second thing isn't controversial. What's difficult and possibly controversial is whether item #1 is possible in Brazil, or the US (where guns are already common). My take on it is this: stricter laws + wait 2 or 3 generations -> fewer guns. fewer guns -> fewer deaths.
  • ueushzvzis 9y ago
    Fewer guns does not equal fewer deaths in the developed world. You are doing exactly what you claim to be against. Cherry picking data to suit your narrative.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • daemin 9y ago
      Yeah it does, Australia. That's the prime example of fewer guns = fewer deaths.
      • andrenth 9y ago
        Australia also had reduced number of gun-unrelated deaths. In fact the percent reduction in those cases was larger than the reduction of gun deaths. So the stricter gun laws can't be considered the sole explanation for fewer deaths.
        • ceejayoz 9y ago
          There's been a world-wide reduction in crime since the 1970s. It's very possible to isolate the impact of Australia's gun laws by comparing to other similar countries that didn't implement a major gun ban at the time.
• omnimus 9y ago
  Lol this is exactly what above comment talks about. You are picking the country that fits that narrative but forget about all of the rest. Brazil compared to US is so poor and with shitty corrupted police. US police prides itself on being the best most sophisticated in the world i dont se a reason why they would have problems doing same job as police in europe. They would have it in fact much easier. Also the fact that Brazil has gun problems even when guns are prohibited does not mean that it would be better if they were allowed and everyone would carry one. What is this logic wtf.
  • andrenth 9y ago
    > You are picking the country that fits that narrative but forget about all of the rest A proof by contradiction only requires one single example. > Brazil compared to US is so poor and with shitty corrupted police That's true but completely unrelated to gun ownership. The police has to deal with people who don't care about gun ownership laws. > Also the fact that Brazil has gun problems even when guns are prohibited does not mean that it would be better if they were allowed and everyone would carry one. What is this logic wtf. Criminals can be absolutely sure that citizens won't be able to protect themselves.
    • kaybe 9y ago
      > Criminals can be absolutely sure that citizens won't be able to protect themselves. How about this: Criminals can expect not to be shot when they try to pull something, thus they don't have to shoot first. If the amount of criminals trying to pull something does not go up or down (which I expect but don't know) the whole criminaling might become less deadly.
      • andrenth 9y ago
        > Criminals can expect not to be shot when they try to pull something, thus they don't have to shoot first. This doesn't seem to match reality, at least in my country.
• Spare_account 9y ago
  How many homicides per year were there before they banned guns?
• Cthulhu_ 9y ago
  The ban on weapons won't stop criminals from getting them or mass shootings or whatnot; like in Brazil, that's a societal problem, not caused by the relative accessibility of guns. Accidental gun deaths will however drop by a lot. Thousands of people die every year from that (including 1300 children according to a random headline I quickly googled). These are silly and preventable deaths.
• herbst 9y ago
  Take also Switzerland nearly as much guns but barely gun deaths.
  • taneq 9y ago
    IIRC (1) Those guns are all bulky rifle-style things which are great when you're defending against an invading army but not so useful when you want to shoot some of your classmates, and (2) There are lots of guns around but access to ammunition is tightly controlled.
    • herbst 9y ago
      Even thought I live there I only have a limited understanding. But from what I can tell a) ammunition is sold over the counter to everyone with a license. b) you are talking about the military rifle. Which is by far not the only gun you can buy (again I don't know the exact limits, I assume automatic is somewhat banned)
    • otherme1 9y ago
      You have an article in the wikipedia that informs you that (1) is false, they can buy semi-auto freely. And (2) is also false, they can buy ammo if they legally own a weapon. The difference is in the quality of the society.
• kstenerud 9y ago
  Brazil has a homicide rate of 26.74 per 100,000, of which 19.99 are from firearms. The USA has a homicide rate of 4.88 per 100,000. of which 3.60 are from firearms. It's also interesting to note that the USA has the highest homicide rate of all "first world" nations, trailing close behind wonderful places like Kyrgyzstan and Somalia. The next highest "first world" nation, Canada, is 1.68 (1/3 of the USA), of which 0.38 are from firearms. The USA has the most lax firearm laws of the three I mentioned, and also has a high proportion of homicides perpetrated using firearms. Canada has somewhat stricter laws and a considerably lower rate from firearms. Brazil has extreme gun control, but still a very high rate from firearms. The link between gun control and violence seems inconclusive to me. However, the base propensity for violence is definitely tied to the culture.
  • hectorlorenzo 9y ago
    "Tighter gun controls" doesn't always lead to "harder access to guns". How strong is the black market in Brazil (for everything, not only guns). How strong it is in the USA? How easy is to access otherwise prohibited goods in general?
    • kstenerud 9y ago
      The point is that gun control is not proven to reduce violent deaths. Gun ownership just doesn't correlate to violent deaths. People want it to because guns are instruments of violence and "it just stands to reason", but the numbers don't bear this out. The USA has 101 guns per 100 residents and a homicide rate of 15.696 per 100,000. The Bahamas has 5.3 per 100 residents and a homicide rate of 29.81. Canada has 30.8 per 100 residents and a homicide rate of 1.68. Norway has 31.3 per 100 resdents and a homicide rate of 0.56. Finland has 34.2 per 100 residents and a homicide rate of 1.60 Serbia has 58.21 per 100 residents and a homicide rate of 1.13 In other words, it's all over the map.
      • kstenerud 9y ago
        What's even more telling is the downvotes to my previous comment. Am I going against the community standards in how I'm going about supporting a position? Is the data I posted so sinful that you feel compelled to punish me for posting it? Is the data wrong? Is the conclusion wrong such that you can articulate why, and where exactly the logic breaks down? Or is it just that gun control, like drug legalization, is an emotional topic and not a rational one?